Short Note : It has been found by the Courts below that the defendants did encroach 0.06 acre out of the land of the plaintiffs which was given a sub-number 67/3. This is duly proved from the sale-deed, Ex.P-1-A the entry in record of rights, Ex.P-2, receipts book, Ex.P-3, Kistbandi Khatauni, Ex.P-4 and Panchasala Khasra, Ex.P-5. However, the Panchasala Khasra, Ex.P-6, for the years 1957-58 to 1961-62 in respect of Khasra No. 67, the house of the defendants existed since 1957-58 and well since 1959-60. The plaintiff's witnesses were unable to state as to when the defendants constructed the house and dug the well. It appears from their evidence that when the defendants started reconstructing their house in 1966, the plaintiffs came to know about, the encroachment. It is evident, therefore, that these constructions were in existence much before the parchase of the property by the plaintiffs. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs' vendor at any time raised any objection about this construction. Held : The plaintiffs or their vendor having allowed the defendants to raise a construction of a permanent character without any protest, their conduct would disentitle them from claiming relief of mandatory injunction of demolition of superstructure or filling up the well. It being a discretionary relief, the Courts below were justified in awarding damages instead of the relief claimed. Normally award of damages is not an appropriate relief but due to laches on the part of the plaintiffs, equities are not in their favour in obtaining the relief of mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs have themselves valued the encroached area at Rs. 50 and as such compensation of R s. 50 has been awarded. Appeal dismissed.